4 ms·

I think you are confusing the average smartphone user with the average Basecamp user. The former is interested in shiny apps that make them feel like Tom Cruise

I think you are confusing the average smartphone user with the average Basecamp user. The former is interested in shiny apps that make them feel like Tom Cruise in Minority Report. The latter wants something that is fast, easy to use, and saves time. 37 Signals has made a pile of money by ignoring all the cw about what customers want. I wouldn't write them off just yet.

smackfu 16y ago
You don't think the companies using the shiniest new web apps aren't using the shiniest new phones?
- hyperbovine 16y ago
  Basecamp is not "shiny". It's functional, fast, and has a very small learning curve. That is why it is such a roaring success in the business community. People in business don't have time to decipher your chrome-laden, non-HIG iPhone app. That is also why Windows XP and BlackBerry still retain a lot of popularity in that community, despite being based on Precambrian technology.
  - smackfu 16y ago
    It is the poster child of Web 2.0 services and Ruby on Rails. Has the world really moved on that fast that this is old hat now?
markessien 16y ago
Native apps are faster, easier to use and save time. Web apps are easier to develop for them, that's why they chose them.
- boucher 16y ago
  This is the argument everyone pushes, but it's not true. Yes, JavaScript is slower than Objective-C. No, it doesn't matter in most cases. Speed of almost all consumer apps is measured in user time, not in ms, and you can achieve top notch perceived speed in a web app for most of the types of apps on the app store.
  - markessien 16y ago
    The problem is not javascript, the problem is server round-trips. Local HTML5 is practically indistinguishable from a native client - but that's not what they are doing. They are making a proper server based system.
    - hyperbovine 16y ago
      All of their products are web apps. Those round-trips are getting made regardless.

smackfu 16y ago

You don't think the companies using the shiniest new web apps aren't using the shiniest new phones?

hyperbovine 16y ago
Basecamp is not "shiny". It's functional, fast, and has a very small learning curve. That is why it is such a roaring success in the business community. People in business don't have time to decipher your chrome-laden, non-HIG iPhone app. That is also why Windows XP and BlackBerry still retain a lot of popularity in that community, despite being based on Precambrian technology.
- smackfu 16y ago
  It is the poster child of Web 2.0 services and Ruby on Rails. Has the world really moved on that fast that this is old hat now?

markessien 16y ago

Native apps are faster, easier to use and save time. Web apps are easier to develop for them, that's why they chose them.

boucher 16y ago
This is the argument everyone pushes, but it's not true. Yes, JavaScript is slower than Objective-C. No, it doesn't matter in most cases. Speed of almost all consumer apps is measured in user time, not in ms, and you can achieve top notch perceived speed in a web app for most of the types of apps on the app store.
- markessien 16y ago
  The problem is not javascript, the problem is server round-trips. Local HTML5 is practically indistinguishable from a native client - but that's not what they are doing. They are making a proper server based system.
  - hyperbovine 16y ago
    All of their products are web apps. Those round-trips are getting made regardless.